4.5 Article

Adolescent nonsuicidal self-injury and cortisol response to the retrieval of adversity: A sibling study

Journal

PSYCHONEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 110, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104460

Keywords

Non-suicidal self-injury; Hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis; Childhood adversity; Cortisol; Sibling study

Funding

  1. Dres. Majic/Majic-Schelz-Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: There is evidence for alterations in hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis response to the retrieval of traumatic events among individuals with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. However, no study has so far investigated HPA response to trauma retrieval among individuals engaging in non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). In the present study, we compared reports of childhood adversity (CA) between adolescents engaging in NSSI and their siblings and tested for differences in the cortisol response to the retrieval of CA. Methods: The sample consisted of 32 adolescents engaging in NSSI (M-age = 15.8 years) and their siblings (M-age( )= 15.6 years). Standardized interviews were used for the assessment of CA, NSSI, and axis I diagnoses. Salivary cortisol was measured before and after the trauma interview. Basal HPA axis activity was measured in hair. Results: Reports of CA were moderately interrelated between siblings. Adolescents engaging in NSSI reported more severe CA. A significant decrease of salivary cortisol during the trauma interview was found only in the NSSI group. The NSSI group had significantly higher hair cortisol levels. Conclusions: Moderate relations in siblings' reports of CA point to non-shared experiences that may play a role in the development of NSSI. In the NSSI group, the decrease of salivary cortisol during the interview may be explained by a downregulation of the HPA axis subsequent to the retrieval of former experience of CA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available